Jump to content



Sign up for a free account to remove the pop-up ads

Signing up for an account is fast and free. As a member you can join in the conversation, enter contests and remove the pop-up ads that guests get. Click here to create your free account.

Photo
- - - - -

Warner Archive Launches Streaming Service


  • You cannot start a new topic
  • Please log in to reply
159 replies to this topic

#21 of 160 OFFLINE   Traveling Matt

Traveling Matt

    Second Unit



  • 399 posts
  • Join Date: Sep 01 2006

Posted February 03 2013 - 05:57 AM

As someone who doesn't do DVD-R, and wouldn't be interested in trying to see everything by disc anyway, this sounds like the excellent alternative I anticipated. If it's indeed a suitable substitute for those without TCM, it could be really great. Looking forward to hearing more.

#22 of 160 OFFLINE   JoHud

JoHud

    Screenwriter



  • 2,705 posts
  • Join Date: Sep 11 2007
  • Real Name:Joe Hudak

Posted February 03 2013 - 06:02 AM

I In actuality, the circumstances are not exactly as you perceive. One of WB archives' earliest 'remastered' titles ( from the era of the red banded header on the packagng) was the Mnogram noir "Violence" ( Great little gem BTW) and that title is in their private beta in HD. Mexican Spitfire and the monogram set with "Texas Lawmen" were not marketed as remastered releases, and likely used newer SD sources. I would venture to guess that there will be many more of the WAC- initiated HD remasters as time goes on included in thie new service as it officialy launches. Eiher way, with such a stellar array of great films and unique rarities ( especially the cool and ultra-rare TV stuff they have which you can't see anywhere else), this service is a must for me, especially if is reasonably priced!

Thanks for the clarification there. I agree that the WAC HD transfers should show up as this service goes public. The TV series selection is so far limited, but assuming they add more it would be a great way to see shows that are never actually on TV anymore.

#23 of 160 OFFLINE   Randy Korstick

Randy Korstick

    Screenwriter



  • 2,442 posts
  • Join Date: Feb 24 2000

Posted February 04 2013 - 02:59 AM

I agree with this. I am basically AGAINST streaming as far as OWNING is concerned. If there's a movie I like that I want to add to my own personal library, then I wish to have it physically on a commercially released disc -- and with packaging and artwork to compliment it (even if it's a MOD release, though of course I prefer PRESSED discs). Those who support streaming better start realizing that there is every likelihood that one day their viewing choices will be dictated by the studios, and they will decide what is available on their menu for you to watch, only for whatever length of time they decide it will be available to you. Streaming completely gives them the reigns with which to control you and your viewing options. But once you own a physical disc, it's yours to do with as you please forever -- as long as you are able to have the electronics to play them on (store a couple of extra players and HDTVs if you like). Having said that, RENTALS are another matter entirely. I am presently not hooked up for streaming because there are not many times I think of films I would like to sample before deciding whether or not they're worth owning. If I wanted to watch more first-time films, then I think streaming is preferable to going to a rental store like BLOCKBUSTER and having to borrow a disc and then go back and return it. For example, although I generally dislike modern remakes of older films, I am interested in seeing the redux of THE LAST HOUSE ON THE LEFT (I thought Wes Craven's original was a terrible movie). If I had streaming, then I could just press the button and have it delivered straight to my screen. That would be fine --- but if I decided I wanted to OWN the film, then I want a physical DVD or Blu-ray; not some cloud or link or file, or whatever the heck it is.

Agreed Joe and as to the Young people streaming. I personally don't stream and have no desire to.but know many young people who do stream and none of them pay to stream as there are so many sites that offer free streaming, most not legal but this is the bigger problem with streaming. So I'm not sure this will be successful and ultimately do not care..
...When you eliminate the impossible whatever remains, no matter how improbable, must be the truth

Top 20 Films

#24 of 160 OFFLINE   Brandon Conway

Brandon Conway

    captveg



  • 7,281 posts
  • Join Date: Sep 30 2002
  • Real Name:Brandon Conway
  • LocationNorth Hollywood, CA

Posted February 04 2013 - 07:51 AM

Originally Posted by Randy Korstick 


Agreed Joe and as to the Young people streaming. I personally don't stream and have no desire to.but know many young people who do stream and none of them pay to stream as there are so many sites that offer free streaming, most not legal but this is the bigger problem with streaming. So I'm not sure this will be successful and ultimately do not care..


All the people know who stream (who are in their 20s/30s) subscribe to multiple channels - Netflix, Hulu Plus, Amazon Prime, etc. They may also find things they can't get via those channels illegally on occasion, but they do subscribe to the official channels.


"And now the reprimand, from an American critic. He reproaches me for using film as a sacred & lasting medium, like a painting or a book. He does not believe that filmmaking is an inferior art, but he believes, and quite rightly, that a reel goes quickly, that the public are looking above all for relaxation, that film is fragile and that it is pretentious to express the power of one's soul by such ephemeral and delicate means, that Charlie Chaplin's or Buster Keaton's first films can only be seen on very rare and badly spoiled prints. I add that the cinema is making daily progress and that eventually films that we consider marvelous today will soon be forgotten because of new dimensions & colour. This is true. But for 4 weeks this film [The Blood of a Poet] has been shown to audiences that have been so attentive, so eager & so warm, that I wonder after all there is not an anonymous public who are looking for more than relaxation in the cinema." - Jean Cocteau, 1932


#25 of 160 OFFLINE   Randy Korstick

Randy Korstick

    Screenwriter



  • 2,442 posts
  • Join Date: Feb 24 2000

Posted February 04 2013 - 07:58 AM

All the people know who stream (who are in their 20s/30s) subscribe to multiple channels - Netflix, Hulu Plus, Amazon Prime, etc. They may also find things they can't get via those channels illegally on occasion, but they do subscribe to the official channels.

And do they also pay to download most of their music? Just curious.
...When you eliminate the impossible whatever remains, no matter how improbable, must be the truth

Top 20 Films

#26 of 160 OFFLINE   Michael Elliott

Michael Elliott

    Lead Actor



  • 7,132 posts
  • Join Date: Jul 11 2003
  • Real Name:Michael Elliott
  • LocationKY

Posted February 04 2013 - 11:02 AM

Randy, you obviously don't get it and don't care to get it so your little digs at youth really aren't working. You seem to think that bootlegs are just streaming but I promise that your beloved discs have much more illegal activity going on. Just check out some place safe like Amazon before we even get into the back alleys. If there's some underworld of streaming going on out there I would really love to talk to you via PM because I want to hear some of it. In fact, I've yet to see the boogeyman in a corner selling a stream of a new movie. :D I'm currently with Hulu, Amazon, Netflix and Fandor for pay sites. I'll join this one as soon as it's available. I've got probably 10-15 free stations on Roku as well. There's nothing wrong with kickin' old school, which some are doing by packing their pistols are refusing to hear anything about this new format. Again, if I watched the same old films over and over then I'd spit on streaming and everything about it. If I watched the same films, for the most part, then I'd want each of them on a shelf with velvet around them so that I could watch it everyday of the week and perhaps twice on Sundays. I think everyone understands this because everyone has their favorites that they want to pull off the shelf. On the other hand, I watched about 1800+ films, documentaries, shorts and featurettes last year and I think I did 170 last month alone. Most of the stuff wasn't in my collection but came from one of the stations that I just mentioned or Youtube (where there are a lot of issues). I'm not going to going into why paying $15 for all of these would be impossible but I am going to say that most of the streams were of items that I couldn't have gotten elsewhere. Yeah, watching JAWS on Netflix really isn't all that thrilling because I own it. If Warner offers up BEN HUR on this steam then it's not all that interesting because I can buy it, rent it or see it on TCM several times a year. What is exciting is when films become available that aren't available anywhere else. Netflix just through up some pretty cool Euro titles as well as some great documentaries that haven't been seen in years (Chaney and Pickford ones). These are some of the exciting things that make streaming so much fun. Who knows when they'll get another release but at least I've got a chance to see them. Will the streams be here in ten years? I don't know but they'll at least be there for a few months and this will give me time to watch them. If I miss seeing them in the few months then it's my fault. Your type (the buying discs) is very important to the money men so they're not going to stop supplying you with DVD-Rs. I don't believe I've ever said that discs would die to the point where there were zero. However, their big money is going to be coming from the youth so giving them films on their own terms is the future. There's a reason every device you buy today offers streaming and this is an important part of the item. Be it television, computers, DVD players, Blu-rays and so on. I'm not going to play doom and gloom on anything coming down the road so I won't go there but, as I said in the archive thread well over a year ago, the idea of having everything within the push of a button is great.

#27 of 160 OFFLINE   MattPriceTime

MattPriceTime

    Second Unit



  • 374 posts
  • Join Date: Jul 16 2012
  • Real Name:Matthew Price
  • LocationBrooklyn Park, MD

Posted February 04 2013 - 12:00 PM

Legal streaming is a wonder for those people who want that, but it also has it's illegal counterpart. And that is the clear problem that i can't see how anyone can deny it's a huge problem. It's as bad a problem as illegal downloading sites and share programs that rip us in the entertainment industry off. People are out there giving away what hardworking people made for free. That Boogeyman is out there as plain as day and the internet helps them because sadly many are not being punished for it I personally don't legal stream because i prefer a hardcopy library. There's nothing more to that. it's my preference. .

Blanket Quote for myself for all my postings from Feb 2014 and on

"i'm not shy to mention that i seem to be a major outlier on this forum. But i'm still highly boggled by some things posted here. But hey i can only be so critical but some things do bother me a bit, but to each their own. Even if it's odd conspiracies, not wanting to use terms correctly or just throwing hasty generalizations."

If the horse doesn't want to drink, i'm not going to lead them to water


#28 of 160 OFFLINE   Michael Elliott

Michael Elliott

    Lead Actor



  • 7,132 posts
  • Join Date: Jul 11 2003
  • Real Name:Michael Elliott
  • LocationKY

Posted February 04 2013 - 12:11 PM

Whoever said that there was any sort of guarantee? I know if I BUY (aka not renting or borrowing) then it's mine to place on a DVD-R and keep on my system. I know if I pay $8 to Netflix a month they better offer streaming. If they take it away I take my money away so I'm not sure how I'm wasting my money here. I'll always give my honest word about any subject but I haven't been shut out from streaming in nearly two years. Yes, the early days were rough at times but since then there hasn't been a single issue. No servers down. No maintenance issues (although to be fair, even this site goes down for maintenance as does countless others). Again, if you want to watch the same movie every day, each week, each month and twice on Sunday then buy it. Love it. Keep it on your shelf. But why on Earth should someone have to pay $15 to test a movie and then be stuck with it if they don't like it? This might have been the way to do things back in the early days and I remember paying $35 for blind buys since there weren't any rental places in the early days but then the great technology brought along Netflix. It was great having discs mailed to me for $10 a month but it got even better when they offered up movies I could watch at anytime. Again, I don't know anyone who thinks they "own" these or can watch them whenever they want so when the format is attacked on this level I'm really not sure what the people are trying to say. I'm not sure what type of format Mr. Karlosi used on THE LAST HOUSE ON THE LEFT since he didn't like it but even though it's a cheap disc ($10-ish) he still could have viewed it for free from Amazon. If he liked it then drop the cash. If he's curious about the remake then he can blind buy it or rent it for a few bucks. No need for him to drop $15 and take the chance of not liking it and then only being able to get a few bucks back on Ebay. Streaming is just an option and I've yet to figure out why so many people get caught up in saying how evil it is. TCM always delivered greatness and the Warner Archive delivered greatness. I have no reason to suspect that this new avenue won't be great as well. Just a way for so many things to reach us. Last month was dedicated to Loretta Young on TCM but there were only two movies shown that I had never seen before. For the most part they played everything that they always do but perhaps with this streaming site they'll be able to show some of the films that they didn't play, that haven't been made available and perhaps Young's screentime is just so small that they didn't want to give it a DVD-R or TV showing. Throwing fans this bone through their streaming service would be a great way to get it out there for people to see.

#29 of 160 OFFLINE   colo

colo

    Auditioning



  • 5 posts
  • Join Date: Feb 04 2013

Posted February 04 2013 - 02:33 PM

Whoever said that there was any sort of guarantee? I know if I BUY (aka not renting or borrowing) then it's mine to place on a DVD-R and keep on my system. I know if I pay $8 to Netflix a month they better offer streaming. If they take it away I take my money away so I'm not sure how I'm wasting my money here. I'll always give my honest word about any subject but I haven't been shut out from streaming in nearly two years. Yes, the early days were rough at times but since then there hasn't been a single issue. No servers down. No maintenance issues (although to be fair, even this site goes down for maintenance as does countless others). Again, if you want to watch the same movie every day, each week, each month and twice on Sunday then buy it. Love it. Keep it on your shelf. But why on Earth should someone have to pay $15 to test a movie and then be stuck with it if they don't like it? This might have been the way to do things back in the early days and I remember paying $35 for blind buys since there weren't any rental places in the early days but then the great technology brought along Netflix. It was great having discs mailed to me for $10 a month but it got even better when they offered up movies I could watch at anytime. Again, I don't know anyone who thinks they "own" these or can watch them whenever they want so when the format is attacked on this level I'm really not sure what the people are trying to say. I'm not sure what type of format Mr. Karlosi used on THE LAST HOUSE ON THE LEFT since he didn't like it but even though it's a cheap disc ($10-ish) he still could have viewed it for free from Amazon. If he liked it then drop the cash. If he's curious about the remake then he can blind buy it or rent it for a few bucks. No need for him to drop $15 and take the chance of not liking it and then only being able to get a few bucks back on Ebay. Streaming is just an option and I've yet to figure out why so many people get caught up in saying how evil it is. TCM always delivered greatness and the Warner Archive delivered greatness. I have no reason to suspect that this new avenue won't be great as well. Just a way for so many things to reach us. Last month was dedicated to Loretta Young on TCM but there were only two movies shown that I had never seen before. For the most part they played everything that they always do but perhaps with this streaming site they'll be able to show some of the films that they didn't play, that haven't been made available and perhaps Young's screentime is just so small that they didn't want to give it a DVD-R or TV showing. Throwing fans this bone through their streaming service would be a great way to get it out there for people to see.

You IMPLIED IT since you inferred streaming was better than dvds AND SINCE YOU SAID IT WAS THE FUTURE, THATS AN INFERENCE THAT THE NEWEST TO UOU IS Always superior. Also you know unless they specifically say you can burn a streaming show to dvd-r, and you burn copies and they do not specifically say that it is allowed then that is theft.

#30 of 160 OFFLINE   Michael Elliott

Michael Elliott

    Lead Actor



  • 7,132 posts
  • Join Date: Jul 11 2003
  • Real Name:Michael Elliott
  • LocationKY

Posted February 04 2013 - 04:41 PM

I've never burned a copy of a stream show/movie. I'm sure it happens but there's not much I can personally do about that. 99% of what I've streamed are items I wouldn't pay cash for and I probably wouldn't watch them a second time. When you go through a thousand movies a year there's just very little time for watching the same thing ten times over. Superior is a word I've never said because there are still issues to be worked out but that's to be expected with something rather new. With that said, it's been well over a year since I encountered any major problem. Yes, Netflix has had some issues with movies and even Amazon has quite a bit of public domain titles but a few bad things can't bring down the positive. What I do feel is superior is Warner. Always have and always will. I've openly complained and questioned certain things (like the Bowery Boys) but for the most part they've rarely let me down. When I was buying everything under the moon there wasn't a single box set of theirs that I missed. TCM could be any cheap junk like a lot of stations out there but they go the extra mile. They've gone the extra mile with the Archive series and I really don't see why this new adventure would be anything less than top-quality. Netflix and Amazon make me happier and happier each month so I'm sure Warner knows what they're going against and they will bring their "A" game to this.

#31 of 160 OFFLINE   oloc

oloc

    Extra



  • 15 posts
  • Join Date: Feb 04 2013

Posted February 05 2013 - 02:01 AM

I will explain it so even you can understand it, because you are not getting the hints. 1st have you seen for the last 30 years or so how Disney has their vault system and how they sell them for just a year or so then in vault, then out of vault fir awhile. Well that was the big test, that is how streaming will go with all titles, unless the big wigs get mad the cat is out of the bag now. (all content owners not just disney

#32 of 160 OFFLINE   Randy Korstick

Randy Korstick

    Screenwriter



  • 2,442 posts
  • Join Date: Feb 24 2000

Posted February 05 2013 - 02:39 AM

Michael you are either being sarcastic or you are living in a fantasy world. Its a plain and simple fact that more music is illegally downloaded and streamed than Legally and the same goes for movies and TV's. Its done because its easy and they do not care that money is owed to someone for these services or products. I made no attempt to dis the youth; sounds like maybe a chip on the shoulder. I mentioned the youth because they are more in tune with these services but they are definately not the only ones doing it.
...When you eliminate the impossible whatever remains, no matter how improbable, must be the truth

Top 20 Films

#33 of 160 OFFLINE   Michael Elliott

Michael Elliott

    Lead Actor



  • 7,132 posts
  • Join Date: Jul 11 2003
  • Real Name:Michael Elliott
  • LocationKY

Posted February 05 2013 - 02:25 PM

Michael you are either being sarcastic or you are living in a fantasy world. Its a plain and simple fact that more music is illegally downloaded and streamed than Legally and the same goes for movies and TV's. Its done because its easy and they do not care that money is owed to someone for these services or products. I made no attempt to dis the youth; sounds like maybe a chip on the shoulder. I mentioned the youth because they are more in tune with these services but they are definately not the only ones doing it.

I'm sorry but I didn't realize this was a thread about music. Lets keep it on topic here. You once again have proved nothing and have delivered nothing to the actual topic. I am curious about what you have streamed, what system, your experience and so forth. I'm also curious why you are so worried about these illegal streams and especially since you were never concerned about the various illegal items that hit your BBs long before an official release came out. As for your example, again it's somewhat of a straw man argument. If studios want to avoid some of the problem they should quit giving A++ quality screeners to people in the business who simply give them to their friends and they in turn put them in various places. They don't seem to have stopped doing this in the past ten years so if they can't do something simple I don't know what to tell them. I've been a collector for movies for so long I really don't care to say. Going back to the back pages of Fangoria in the 80s and the countless other magazines who offers "dealers" who you would send snail mail to and they'd send you a book full of goodies. VHS, DVD-R and so on. I've got no hard data to say how much goes to person A or person B but I do know that the various sites out there (Ebay, Amazon, IOffer) don't have illegal streams. They have the other kind. I'm not denying that it's out there but I don't think the common person knows where to find them and I think most are scared off about downloading something to their system. Again, please send me a message off the board about all these illegal sites you know about because I'd certainly love to hear more about them. I can pretty much find any movie I want in one avenue or another but I can't say I've come across anything you mention (or anything I'd trust). BTW, the biggest issues for illegal stuff comes from countless conventions across the world. I will only comment on the "Monster Kid" stuff since I know them and have friends who go. I'm pretty sure these are aimed at older folks and you should hear some of the naughty stuff they bring home and none of them are streams. So, again, trying to push this activity onto just the young is silly. Still, I want to know what's going to hurt from this Warner site going up.

#34 of 160 OFFLINE   Michael Elliott

Michael Elliott

    Lead Actor



  • 7,132 posts
  • Join Date: Jul 11 2003
  • Real Name:Michael Elliott
  • LocationKY

Posted February 05 2013 - 03:16 PM

I will explain it so even you can understand it, because you are not getting the hints. 1st have you seen for the last 30 years or so how Disney has their vault system and how they sell them for just a year or so then in vault, then out of vault fir awhile. Well that was the big test, that is how streaming will go with all titles, unless the big wigs get mad the cat is out of the bag now. (all content owners not just disney

Your posts aren't making much sense to me so there's really no need to explain anything any more. To me everything you've written is just some conspiracy theory that I've heard since copy protection. Your Disney example is fine but you're leaving out a very important fact and that's that you already own a copy so that there is not being taken away. If PETER PAN comes to Blu tomorrow for a month only, you have that time to buy a copy and enjoy that copy until you break it or it breaks on its own. It doesn't really matter if Disney makes it out of print after a month, a year or ten years as you still have your copy to enjoy. Every stream-able option when it comes to Scooby Doo is something I have because my kid loves it. I paid to own these movies and with buying it the studio and Amazon agreed that I can put it on as many devices as I want (I own five) and I can make me a copy for a DVD player. The rules are pretty simple. Warner can pull Scooby from Amazon tomorrow and it's not going to hurt me because I paid to own it. They aren't going to come to my house take the copy or my devices that play it. Now back to the conspiracy. I just don't buy it. If I'm proven wrong then I'll buy you ten titles on whatever format you want. If the conspiracy is that studios are going to force people into streaming and then control when and what they watch then it's just silly to me. If this is the plan at the end of the sunset then it's rather studio for them to be throwing money into films and releasing them to DVD-R. They are making physical products that you can enjoy until they break. There's really no point of this if they're going to force you into streaming so that they can control you watching this. They are just shooting themselves in their foot. I do believe streaming is the future but it's not going to be the end-all say-all IMO. There's too much money to be made off of people willing to buy physical media. Will a stream be $10 and a disc be $15? I can see this happening because of the extra costs of the disc. However, I really don't see Warner cutting off Randy, Joe and yourself just so they can have you pay $8-$10 to stream dozens of titles a month. If anything Warner has respected customers such as yourself by making these films available even when they couldn't survive in stores. When sales went down the drain Warner could have just said screw it and not released these MOD and instead went straight for streaming. They didn't do this because there is money to be made. If you're worried that the studios are going to keep you from viewing this stuff then does it really matter? I'm guessing you own most of the titles you want so what exactly are they going to be keeping from you? You will still be enjoying your discs long into the future so I don't see what this site is going to keep you from doing. If you're worried about new movies then I'd say that's even less likely. Since that's the only thing bringing in good cash I don't see them not releasing THE AVENGERS 2 to DVD and Blu. But again, I don't buy the physical media is dead group.

#35 of 160 OFFLINE   oloc

oloc

    Extra



  • 15 posts
  • Join Date: Feb 04 2013

Posted February 05 2013 - 04:37 PM

Your posts aren't making much sense to me so there's really no need to explain anything any more. To me everything you've written is just some conspiracy theory that I've heard since copy protection. Your Disney example is fine but you're leaving out a very important fact and that's that you already own a copy so that there is not being taken away. If PETER PAN comes to Blu tomorrow for a month only, you have that time to buy a copy and enjoy that copy until you break it or it breaks on its own. It doesn't really matter if Disney makes it out of print after a month, a year or ten years as you still have your copy to enjoy. Every stream-able option when it comes to Scooby Doo is something I have because my kid loves it. I paid to own these movies and with buying it the studio and Amazon agreed that I can put it on as many devices as I want (I own five) and I can make me a copy for a DVD player. The rules are pretty simple. Warner can pull Scooby from Amazon tomorrow and it's not going to hurt me because I paid to own it. They aren't going to come to my house take the copy or my devices that play it. Now back to the conspiracy. I just don't buy it. If I'm proven wrong then I'll buy you ten titles on whatever format you want. If the conspiracy is that studios are going to force people into streaming and then control when and what they watch then it's just silly to me. If this is the plan at the end of the sunset then it's rather studio for them to be throwing money into films and releasing them to DVD-R. They are making physical products that you can enjoy until they break. There's really no point of this if they're going to force you into streaming so that they can control you watching this. They are just shooting themselves in their foot. I do believe streaming is the future but it's not going to be the end-all say-all IMO. There's too much money to be made off of people willing to buy physical media. Will a stream be $10 and a disc be $15? I can see this happening because of the extra costs of the disc. However, I really don't see Warner cutting off Randy, Joe and yourself just so they can have you pay $8-$10 to stream dozens of titles a month. If anything Warner has respected customers such as yourself by making these films available even when they couldn't survive in stores. When sales went down the drain Warner could have just said screw it and not released these MOD and instead went straight for streaming. They didn't do this because there is money to be made. If you're worried that the studios are going to keep you from viewing this stuff then does it really matter? I'm guessing you own most of the titles you want so what exactly are they going to be keeping from you? You will still be enjoying your discs long into the future so I don't see what this site is going to keep you from doing. If you're worried about new movies then I'd say that's even less likely. Since that's the only thing bringing in good cash I don't see them not releasing THE AVENGERS 2 to DVD and Blu. But again, I don't buy the physical media is dead group.

You want me to list all the things nimrods like you labeled as conspiracies that were proven to be fact ? AND also you forget to mention people in future will be cheated and ripped off with the inability to buy discs and sheeple like you are why this is going on.

#36 of 160 OFFLINE   oloc

oloc

    Extra



  • 15 posts
  • Join Date: Feb 04 2013

Posted February 05 2013 - 04:39 PM

Also discs made since 2004 or so are worse than discs made before then, made to not last as long - so we will be forced to streaming when the discs fail and no way to replace them,

#37 of 160 OFFLINE   Cees Alons

Cees Alons

    Executive Producer



  • 18,651 posts
  • Join Date: Jul 31 1997
  • Real Name:Cees Alons

Posted February 05 2013 - 07:48 PM

Originally Posted by oloc 

...... nimrods like you ......


Please confine yourself to discussing facts, posts and opinions, not fellow-posters themselves or their alleged states of minds.

Thanks!



Cees



#38 of 160 OFFLINE   Randy Korstick

Randy Korstick

    Screenwriter



  • 2,442 posts
  • Join Date: Feb 24 2000

Posted February 06 2013 - 02:57 AM

I'm sorry but I didn't realize this was a thread about music. Lets keep it on topic here. You once again have proved nothing and have delivered nothing to the actual topic. I am curious about what you have streamed, what system, your experience and so forth. I'm also curious why you are so worried about these illegal streams and especially since you were never concerned about the various illegal items that hit your BBs long before an official release came out. Still, I want to know what's going to hurt from this Warner site going up.

Its not about music but there is 0% difference in illegally downloading music, movies or illeaglly streaming music, movies or TV shows. They are all equally wrong and those who do one usually do all. What do the Bowery Boys or pirated discs have to do with this conversation? I don't deny there are bootleg discs but I also don't care because I would never buy them. Your point was young people were going to flock to this and discover old movies through this service. Thats what the disagreement is about because: 1.) young people interested in old movies are a small minority and 2.) my biggest point is that most(not all) of the young people that are interested in it will not use it because they have to pay for it. They won't pay because they know they can use illeagl sites to get this content free just like they do with newer movies and music. I don't have any problem with the service starting I just don't agree it will be sucessful with younger people for above reasons. Thats all I was trying to say. I'm not sure why you have to take this personnal. I know you have always enjoyed older movies and I think thats great and if you want to use the service then thats great too. I apologize if I offended you, we just apparently disagree on the issue of young people using this service.
...When you eliminate the impossible whatever remains, no matter how improbable, must be the truth

Top 20 Films

#39 of 160 OFFLINE   Joe Karlosi

Joe Karlosi

    Producer



  • 6,001 posts
  • Join Date: Nov 05 2003

Posted February 06 2013 - 04:29 AM

I'm not sure what type of format Mr. Karlosi used on THE LAST HOUSE ON THE LEFT since he didn't like it but even though it's a cheap disc ($10-ish) he still could have viewed it for free from Amazon. If he liked it then drop the cash. If he's curious about the remake then he can blind buy it or rent it for a few bucks. No need for him to drop $15 and take the chance of not liking it and then only being able to get a few bucks back on Ebay.

I was browsing my local Goodwill store and purchased a used copy of the DVD for about $3.00 (figuring it was like a rental disc price). I'd been wanting to check it out again to see if it improved for me any in the past 25 years since I first saw it (it didn't, by the way). I am curious to see the remake on this, but you're right in that I'm not going to pay more than $5 or so to "rent" it. (I'd say $5 would be my limit for just checking out a movie I'm not sure about). So yes, as I said earlier -- I am open to the idea of streaming as a convenient replacement for RENTALS. At this point I am not hooked up for streaming, nor do I really feel any pressing need to "join the streaming club". Whatever curious movies I wish to check out I suppose I can catch on TCM if necessary, or find as a cheapo DVD at Goodwill or Big Lots somewhere.

Streaming is just an option and I've yet to figure out why so many people get caught up in saying how evil it is. .

I would only consider it "evil" if it replaced physical media; I want there always to be the option to buy discs (preferably pressed and not MOD, but will take whatever I must there). Supporters of streaming have been predicting that it will "take over and replace media" for a few years already, and I am truly astonished and actually disgusted when I read that even some diehard collectors "would be willing to toss out all my bulky movies and love to have everything stream-able at the touch of my finger instead!". But it's already been a few years now and we're nowhere near seeing physical media non-existent and having streaming or downloading as "the only game in town". Frankly, I don't believe that will ever happen. I do realize that when someone is strongly engaged in something, it appears to them that the rest of the world is, too. Believe it or not, if I did not have access to the Internet and couldn't read message boards like this one, I would have NO CLUE that there is something called streaming; it just has not impacted my everyday life to any degree where it is "inescapable". (For example, like the way it's inescapably obvious that everything is cell phones now and there are no more pay phones).

#40 of 160 OFFLINE   Joe Karlosi

Joe Karlosi

    Producer



  • 6,001 posts
  • Join Date: Nov 05 2003

Posted February 06 2013 - 04:47 AM

Your point was young people were going to flock to this and discover old movies through this service. Thats what the disagreement is about because: 1.) young people interested in old movies are a small minority .

Michael and I have been through thick and thin on message boards since 2002 (wow, where does the time go??), and I have been telling him this very same thing all along. Michael is relatively younger than many of us (though he is about to turn 33 as I recall), and I have always been absolutely AMAZED at his appetite for old films -- even the more experimental silent ones coming from 1900. But Michael is in a tiny minority. There is just no way there will be that many younger people caring to stream ancient black and white movies... we're lucky when most of them venture before 1990!




0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users